21.5 Conclusions

If there is little reliable evidence (yet) to support the claims that hypertext systems can really support alternative and superior modes of learning, and we have few effective means of measuring the process of learning anyway, what does that leave us? Three compatible options are available: a reduction in expectations, a switch from process to outcome, and a concentration on an evolutionary approach to development, building on user models rather than trying to make a step-function change: Mao's thousand-mile march started with the first step!

A reduction in expectations is probably now due, given the amount of hype that has accompanied the popularization of hypermedia. As any marketing executive will tell you, a certain amount of hype is necessary in order to stand out against the background noise. However, now that hypermedia has gained a certain amount of acceptance, we can afford to be a little more realistic in our expectations.

A switch from process to outcome might seem reasonable, given our arguments to the effect that psychology does not have a good understanding of the process. Unfortunately, it is no simple matter to measure "learning" as an outcome. Notwithstanding the fact that the education system lumbers on, those involved in the system continue to search for ways that truly reflect meaningful changes in learners as a result of their experiences with the system. It is somewhat ironic that the current emphasis within the British tertiary education system is on measuring the quality of teaching, yet we do not have a philosophically defensible measure of learning against which to judge the teaching function.

Our own preference, as the foregoing has hopefully argued convincingly in favor of, is for an evolutionary approach to system development. However, we take a proactive view of evolution rather than see it as a simple environmental winnowing. We believe that, rather than generating many systems and relying on the "survival of the fittest," it is possible to design "the fittest" for any context by utilizing user-centered, task-based design grounded in an empirical methodology. While we have certain sympathies with the humanistic emphases of the constructivist movement (see 7.4), we find the general scientific approach more fruitful. When the constructivists have achieved as much as the scientists, we may be persuaded otherwise. After all, the essence of science is a mind open to data. For now, the debate continues.